Cited by 83Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackEmpathy and Medical Education

Making sense of feedback experiences: a multi‐school study of medical students' narratives

Urquhart, Lynn M, Rees, Charlotte E, Ker, Jean S·2014·Medical Education

Abstract

Context: Until recently, the perspective of students in the feedback process has been ignored, with strategies for improvement focusing on the tutor and feedback delivery. We employed an original narrative interviewing approach to explore how medical students make sense of their experiences of feedback. Methods: A qualitative design was adopted employing three individual and 10 group interviews to elicit narratives of feedback experiences from 53 medical students at three 5‐year undergraduate programmes in the UK during 2011. Thematic analysis was undertaken of students' understandings of feedback and of their narratives of positive and negative experiences of feedback at medical school. In addition, thematic and discourse analysis of the linguistic and paralinguistic features of talk within the narratives was conducted. Results: Students typically constructed feedback as a monologic process that happened ‘to’ them rather than ‘with’ them. They shared 352 distinct narratives of feedback experiences, which were rich in linguistic and paralinguistic features of talk. Through the analysis of the interplay between the ‘whats’ and ‘hows’ of student talk, i.e. emotion, pronominal and metaphoric talk and laughter, we were able to understand how students find meaning in their experiences. Students used laughter as a coping strategy, emotion talk as a means to convince the audience of the impact of feedback, pronominal and metaphoric talk to describe their relationship (often adversarial) with their feedback providers and to communicate feelings that they might otherwise struggle to articulate. Conclusions: This research extends current feedback literature by focusing on medical students' lived experiences of feedback and their emotional impact through narrative. We go on to discuss the educational implications of our findings and to make recommendations for improvement of the feedback process for students, tutors and for institutions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/medu.12304

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Urquhart, L. M., Rees, C. E., & Ker, J. S.
Affiliations
University of Dundee (GB)
Corresponding author
Urquhart, Lynn M
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-01-12
Volume
48
Issue
2
Pages
189-203
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W1990355333
Cited by
83
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3
FWCI
6.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
Keywords
feedback, medical students, narrative interviews, paralinguistic features, laughter, emotion talk, metaphor, tutor-student relationship, undergraduate medical education
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Education, Medical, Emotions, Feedback, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Language, Laughter, Male, Schools, Medical, Students, Medical, Teaching, Narration, Qualitative Research, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review